Loughlin v Singh & Ors

In assessing damages for future care and case management, the court must adopt a realistic and fair projection of the claimant’s needs. Where a progressive reduction in support is contemplated, the reduction should be staged by reference to what is realistically achievable, rather than applied immediately or postponed without justification. Costs of overnight contingency care and pension provision may be allowed where the evidence establishes a rational and proportionate need.

Interest on damages is governed by the statutory regime applicable to the stage at which the damages are assessed. Where no relevant judgment has yet been entered, Section 35A of the Senior Courts Act 1981 may apply. Judgment interest under Section 17 of the Judgments Act 1838 may arise once crystallised damages should reasonably have been paid.

The claimant had previously obtained judgment in an action arising from serious personal injury. The parties agreed damages of £1,620,512.60 for pain, suffering and loss of amenity, accrued interest and various past losses, but remained unable to agree the costs of future care and case management and the appropriate interest regime.

The court therefore determined the level of care and case management required during the first four years and thereafter. It also considered whether interest fell under The Judgments Act 1838, The Senior Courts Act 1981 or the CPR, and from what dates.

1. Future care during the first four years. The care package was to reduce progressively over the four-year lead-in period, ultimately reaching approximately four hours of daytime support with suitable night-time cover. The reduction had to reflect what was realistically achievable while meeting the claimant’s legitimate needs. The court assessed the combined annual cost of care and case management at £65,000.
2. Future care thereafter. The appropriate long-term package comprised four hours of daytime support and overnight back-up provision. An average cost of £45 per night for possible case-manager interventions was rational and proportionate. Pension costs were properly included. The annual cost of care was assessed at £38,000.
3. Case management thereafter. The court rejected the proposed allowance for 100 hours annually as excessive for the settled package. About 80 hours was sufficient, producing an annual case-management cost of £7,800.
4. Interest. Under The Judgments Act 1838, section 17, judgment interest applies to a relevant judgment debt, and CPR rule 40.8 ordinarily starts such interest when judgment is given. The court held that no relevant judgment had yet been given for the agreed and newly assessed heads of damage. Interest up to 17 July 2013 was therefore awarded under The Senior Courts Act 1981, section 35A, at 2 per cent for general damages and 0.25 per cent for past expenses and losses, subject to credit for notional interest on interim payments.
5. From 17 July 2013, interest on crystallised damages continued under section 35A. Once the claimant had raised the issue on 16 September 2013, the defendant had 14 days to respond appropriately. From expiry of that period, interest on the crystallised amount was payable at 8 per cent under section 17, subject to credit for later payments. Judgment was formally entered against the second defendant.

Not an appeal. The judgment determined outstanding damages and interest issues following an earlier judgment in the same action delivered on 19 June 2013.